AOO's have to go, or be changed

[Lanefan]

This rule exists allready: you can have as much AoO as your attacks. People with more combat prowess can make more AoO.

But if I've got the brainpower of a lima bean...just enough to clobber what's put in front of me...why do I always seem to recognize an "opportunity"? I mean, by the time my tiny brain works through "hey, I should hit that guy who's running past me" he's long gone. And that should have nothing to do with combat ability, which to me is the straight-up ability to thoughtlessly hit things.

Lanefan

 

[mmadsen]

Except, people flee from melee all the time in the real world without getting hit from behind.

People stay in melee all the time in the real world without getting hit from the front. One of the first things you're taught in any martial art is not to turn around and expose your back. If you do, you no longer threaten your opponent, so he can unload on you, and you can't see it coming -- but you have to fight your instincts in order to keep facing danger.

Wizards are already fragile. This would almost guarantee that a fighter in melee with a wizard will always win.

That doesn't sound so wrong to me...

 

[DM_Blake]

People stay in melee all the time in the real world without getting hit from the front. One of the first things you're taught in any martial art is not to turn around and expose your back. If you do, you no longer threaten your opponent, so he can unload on you, and you can't see it coming -- but you have to fight your instincts in order to keep facing danger.

Yeah, I was taught that too. That's great, if you're sparring in a ring, competing in a UFC match, or even fighting for your life against an armed mugger in a dark alley.

But, sometimes running is the best option. Sometimes the commander of the battle (talking real world warfare) sounds the retreat. Sometimes risking your life, or risking incarceration for assault and battery, is too much of a risk to fend off a knife-wielding mugger.

Sometimes you just would rather run away than face the battle.

In the real world, people retreat from close combat all the time. Sometimes they make it, sometimes they get whacked in the back.

That doesn't sound so wrong to me...

(the quote references a comment of mine that a fighter would win every engagement with a wizard)

Seems to me, in a game envrionment, you would want a better balance than that. It would be nice if a wizard could, once in a while, beat a fighter in an engagement without having to rely on the fighter rolling a natural 1 on his attack roll to gork him every time he tries to cast a spell. Maybe, once in a while, that wizard can shrug off the hit, deal with the pain, and maintain concentration on a spell to remain competitive in the encounter.

 

[Plane Sailing]

People stay in melee all the time in the real world without getting hit from the front. One of the first things you're taught in any martial art is not to turn around and expose your back. If you do, you no longer threaten your opponent, so he can unload on you, and you can't see it coming

That sounds like just turning your back on someone, which I can understand leaving you really open to them - but I'd bet that actually fleeing from a combat is pretty easy to do, especially if the opponent isn't actually expecting it. You would be vulnerable to a weapon they can throw or fire at your exposed back, but in the instant you turn and take your first step away you are likely out of reach of their hand weapon.

 

[Plane Sailing]

In my opinion AoO can go right out the window and I would miss a thing. In fact I would be happier if they did.

I'm with you there, brother!

I think we know that they are still going to be around, but I'd wish they just used a simple 'zone of control' model such as has been successful in innumerable RPGs and wargames prior to 3e. ( I speak as a true grognard in the traditional sense here!)

Despite people claiming that it would "unfairly reduce peoples opportunities", it is a system that (a) works and (b) models reality reasonably well too.

Cheers

 

[SlagMortar]

I like your house rule, Plane Sailing. I would probably make it a so the DC to perform a distracting action while in an opponent's zone of controll is an opposed roll between the higher of your Concentration or Base Attack vs the threatening opponent's base attack. That would reflect how well your opponent is at pressing an attack vs how well you can keep your defenses up while performing the distracting action.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

The first part about limiting attacks of opportunity makes sense....

As for the limit of only taking an AoO if the previous or next action is a melee attack...

And the part about the Combat Reflexes feat really confuses me...

Thats okay, I often have that problem myself
Keep in mind that my post represents an idea that muddled into my head while reading the other suggestions and debates... which tends to make it rather ragged around the corners and often an idea that should be tossed...

My reasoning for limiting AoO to a time when there is a melee attack either before or after is simply an attempt to model that you can react to oppotunities when your intent is to bash someone with a weapon. Note, your Cleric casting a spell can still bash someone on an AoO as long as he/she alternates casting with melee attack... but not between casting spells in two rounds.


My reasoning on Combat Reflexes is this.. with this alt.AoO in a toe to two fight, each character gets an additional 'free' attack on thier opponent. The ability to not only get this free attack as an immediate action *and* potentially interupt a manuever your opponent attempts is more powerful than the current version.
The penalty to hit/AC applies to the character who attacks on the AoO as a trade off to the increased power of Combat Reflexes.


All that being said, I am still on the side that the AoO mechanic provides more of a benefit to my game than it does a detriment.


SlagMortar
Are you suggesting the following rules sequence:
- PC in zone of control attempts an action that distracts them from defense actions, such as drinking a potion
- PC and Foe roll opposed BAB check
- If PC wins, action continues
- If Foe wins, action is aborted

?
If so, thats a fairly elegant way of doing it.